Greenwashinghttp://members.greenpeace.org//blog/greenwashing
en-UShttp://backend.userland.com/rss60Environmental Groups Highlight “Greenwashing” by American, United, Continental Airlinesclaudettehttp://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenwashing/2011/05/24/environmental-groups-highlight-greenwash
Tue, 24 May 2011 15:36:41 +0000OilGeneral Greenwash13981@http://members.greenpeace.org/gpblogWe know the oil companies are notorious greenwashers, but you might not have thought about the airlines. Apparently, they're just as guilty as big oil.
This month a group of environmental organizations, including Earth Justice, Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, Environment America, Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund, called out American Airlines, United and Continental Airlines for their efforts to gut anti-pollution
programs while simultaneously bragging about their environmental
performance.
The issue is these companies each touted their environmental responsibility around Earth Day last month: American in an article in American Airlines in-flight magazine, and the newly merged United and Continental in the description of their new “Eco-Skies” environmental campaign.
But meanwhile were suing in the European Court of
Justice to block a new law that holds airlines accountable for their global warming pollution. Classic Greenwash.
The environmental groups sent letters to the airlines criticizing them for:
“spending [their] customers' money on lawyers and lobbyists in an effort to thwart a crucial anti-pollution program”.
And urging them to:
"drop the lawsuit, and join the future of low-carbon aviation by making your actions consistent with your words."
EDF also sumitted ads to the airline magazines urging them to start flying cleaner (above).
Read more on the Environmental Defense Fund's blog.]]>http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenwashing?p=13981&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#commentsDon't be fooled by Shell's Arctic adsclaudettehttp://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenwashing/2010/11/15/don-t-be-fooled-by-shell-s-arctic-ads
Mon, 15 Nov 2010 18:39:47 +0000AutosOilShell13423@http://members.greenpeace.org/gpblogGreenpeace has been documenting Shell's greenwash for years, including false claims about capturing CO2 emissions and misinforming consumers about tar sands. But since BP's oil disaster, Shell has embarked on a huge, new ad campaign bigger than its previous misleading efforts.
Shell's “Let's Go” campaign played out over the summer as BP's oil was gushing and all other oil companies were trying to keep a low profile. In contrast to BP's “Making This Right” ads, Shell was making a name for itself as a company that was thinking about the future and working tirelessly to be responsible, reduce emissions and improve efficiency.
Despite the green and secure picture Shell was painting, the company meanwhile was fighting long and hard to open up new, riskier territory to oil drilling. Shell's the largest leaseholder in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas off the coast of Alaska and has spent billions working to open up these areas to offshore drilling.
Last week, Shell amplified its campaign efforts, launching a new, aggressive phase about drilling in the Arctic.
The New York Times called this what it is, “a public lobby campaign” aimed at pressuring the Interior Department to grant final approval for its Arctic drilling projects. According to the Times, the company is placing ads for the rest of the month in “national newspapers, liberal and conservative political magazines and media focused on Congress”.
In the ads, Shell claims to have emergency oil-spill response plans better than BP's, including a “sub-sea containment system” and a response vessel on standby to drill a relief well. Just suppose this system did work in the spring or summer, what happens when the weather turns and the water freezes? In the remote waters of Alaska's coast, harsh weather and icy waters are the norm, the risk of blowouts is higher and response capacity smaller than in the Gulf of Mexico, and oil spill “clean up” is impossible.
Regulators should be skeptical of any response plans Shell submits. During Congressional oil spill hearings last summer, Rep. Ed Markey exposed that Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips had emergency oil-spill response plans written by the same company and nearly identical to BP's. The plans included information on protecting walruses in the Gulf of Mexico (even though they live in the Arctic) and the name and phone number of a scientist who died years earlier as a go-to expert in the event of a spill.
The public shouldn't be fooled by Shell's new ad campaign and neither should the Interior Department. Shell's legacy of misstatements provides reason to be skeptical.]]>http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenwashing?p=13423&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#commentsShell Starts 'Lets Go' Campaign in Virginia Metrohaleywalkerhttp://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenwashing/2010/08/11/shell-starts-lets-go-campaign-in-virgini
Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:46:29 +0000Shell12836@http://members.greenpeace.org/gpbloghttp://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenwashing?p=12836&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#commentsSandra Bullock Backs Out of Greenwashing Schemehaleywalkerhttp://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenwashing/2010/08/11/sandra-bullock-backs-out-of-greenwashing
Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:08:43 +0000Oil12835@http://members.greenpeace.org/gpbloghttp://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenwashing?p=12835&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#commentsShell Uses Japanese Families in Greenwashing Advertising Campaign haleywalkerhttp://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenwashing/2010/08/05/shell-uses-japanese-families-in-greenwa
Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:28:01 +0000Shell12808@http://members.greenpeace.org/gpbloghttp://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenwashing?p=12808&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#commentsShell Hosts Greenwash Event Called "Eco Marathon"haleywalkerhttp://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenwashing/2010/08/04/shell-hosts-greenwash-event-called-eco-_2
Wed, 04 Aug 2010 18:17:52 +0000Shell12801@http://members.greenpeace.org/gpbloghttp://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenwashing?p=12801&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#commentsBP Spends $5.6 Million on Advertising in 3 Newspapers in 1 Monthhaleywalkerhttp://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenwashing/2010/07/30/bp-spends-5-6-million-on-advertising-in
Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:24:22 +0000BP12759@http://members.greenpeace.org/gpbloghttp://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenwashing?p=12759&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#commentsExxon continued to fund climate denial in 2009kert_davieshttp://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenwashing/2010/07/20/exxon-continues-to-fund-climate-denial-i
Tue, 20 Jul 2010 04:36:45 +0000Exxon12665@http://members.greenpeace.org/gpblogExxonMobil gave approximately $1.3 million to climate denial organizations last year.This has been reported by The Times (London) after being provided information by the Greenpeace Research Department. (The Times is unfortunately a subscription-only paper online, but a version of the story can be found syndicated at The Australian).Greenpeace tabulated this figure - as we have done every year - from Exxon's annual corporate Worldwide Giving Report. This year's Giving Report was way late on arrival, only published online in late June rather than the customary delivery in May before Exxon's annual general shareholders meeting. Download pdf of Worldwide Giving Report here The Times concluded that Exxon had broken its pledges dating back to 2005 to stop payments to climate change deniers. After significant pressure from numerous bodies including ExxonSecrets, the Royal Society of London and Senators Snowe and Rockefeller, Exxon admitted its campaign of diversion. In its 2007 Corporate Citizenship Report, published in May 2008, the oil giant stated, “In 2008, we will discontinue contributions to several public policy groups, whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure energy required for economic growth in a responsible manner.” And indeed, over the past four years, Exxon has reduced its grants to prominent climate change deniers from the peak spending in 2005 of over $3.5M. Greenpeace's research shows a $2.2 million reduction in annual funding to these organizations, down to roughly $1.3 million in 2009. The number of groups known to be funded has dropped from 51 to 24 between 2005 and 2009. So they are down to about half the organizations and about one third of the funding. But is that good enough? Does this mean Exxon gets credit for finally ditching the deniers? Clearly not. In 2009, Exxon was still giving significant contributions to organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, the Annapolis Center, the American Enterprise Institute, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the Harvard- Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the Washington Legal Foundation, each of which has a long history of climate change denial. (see complete list of 2009 funding below).Exxon has told The Times that it is no longer funding Atlas Economic Research Foundation, the Pacific Research Institute and the Media Research Center, the former nest of Marc Morano (ex- Sen. Inhofe staffer and now CFACT blogger). The 2009 funding to these groups was: $100,000 to Atlas Economic Research Foundation$75,000 to the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy $50,000 to the Media Research CenterWe'll report on the veracity of that statement NEXT year when Exxon publishes this year's funding.Exxon drops denial groups, but picks up denier scientists insteadImportantly, during the same period where Exxon bent to the pressure on its campaign of denial and cut all funding to hard core deniers like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute and others...Exxon began funding (at least publicly) the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) in 2005. The 2009 ExxonMobil funding to SAO was $ 76,106, for a grand and odd total of $417,212 since 2005. SAO is the home of Dr. Willie Soon and Dr. Sallie Baliunas, two scientists who have worked both together and as individuals on publishing junk science for nearly two decades. Both have been heavily involved with many of the groups running denier campaigns today. For example, Soon and Baliunas' article “Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years,” concluded (incorrectly) that the warming of the globe experienced today is not at all unique and that the twentieth century is not the warmest on record, contradicting well established science. This paper was partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute. The flawed peer review process that led to its publication caused several editors at Climate Research (where it was published) to resign. In 2007, just ahead of a crucial decision by the US Federal Government about whether to list polar bears as "endangered" from climate change, Soon was funded by ExxonMobil for his work in a paper that argued that polar bears were not under threat (because climate change wasn't happening). Soon is an expert in astrophysics, not polar bears, but Exxon saw fit to fund this work. Baliunas has individually authored a 1994 report entitled “The Ozone Crisis,” claiming that science denies CFC's affect on the ozone. She has been a resident expert at the George C Marshall Institute for years, alongside other serial deniers such as S Fred Singer. So much more is detailed in our "Dealing in Doubt" report. It is a campaign of denial that goes back some 20 years. It continues to this day as the stakes get higher and higher. 2010, so far, has set global records for high temperatures. Corporate and private funders of the organizations who continue to deal in misinformation about climate science and climate policy will someday be held accountable for their destructive actions.24 organizations in ExxonSecrets database were funded in 2009:AEI American Enterprise Institute $235,000Atlas Economic Research Foundation $100,000National Taxpayers Union Foundation $80,000Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory $76,106Annapolis Center $75,000Communications Institute $75,000National Black Chamber of Commerce $75,000Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy $75,000Heritage Foundation $50,000Manhattan Institute $50,000Media Research Center $50,000ALEC American Legislative Exchange Council $47,500Mercatus Center, George Mason University $40,000Washington Legal Foundation $40,000Center for American and International Law $33,50 Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment $30,000American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research $25,000American Spectator Foundation $25,000National Association of Neighborhoods $25,000Texas Public Policy Foundation $20,000Federalist Society $15,000Pacific Legal Foundation $15,000Landmark Legal Foundation $10,000Mountain States Legal Foundation $10,000]]>http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenwashing?p=12665&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#commentsSouthern Company 'wraps' Smithsonian Magazine in greenwashhaleywalkerhttp://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenwashing/2010/07/13/southern-company-wraps-smithsonian-magaz_1
Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:31:30 +0000CoalGeneral GreenwashSouthern Company12615@http://members.greenpeace.org/gpbloghttp://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenwashing?p=12615&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#commentsShell launches massive greenwash ad on New York Times web sitehaleywalkerhttp://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenwashing/2010/07/01/shell-launches-massive-greenwash-ad-on-n
Thu, 01 Jul 2010 14:51:54 +0000OilShell12529@http://members.greenpeace.org/gpbloghttp://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenwashing?p=12529&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#comments